I'll keep buying AMD until the very end, anyways. I hope they don't go bankrupt/sell out/get split up. I think that they do have products that have value in today's market.

I just upgraded my HTPC to a quad-core LLano rig. It's pretty nice, but when I load it down with DC stuff, on all CPU cores + the GPU, I can kind of hear minor subtle glitches in the audio stream listening to playback of internet radio using flash player. Which is unfortunate.

I also recently upgrade my main rig to a SB dual-core, with an NV graphics card. So I'm not AMD-only. But I do believe in supporting the underdog, when possible.

__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec

I still see no reason to sell my AMD stock. I've already taken a huge hit anyways.

Bankruptcy would have me scared, but realistically that's still a ways off, especially with AMD's constant cost cutting. If AMD does sell itself off in pieces and into oblivion, then there's gonna be more return for me as a share holder because AMD's book/IP value exceeds their current market valuation by a good bit.

- Sell its X86-64 patents to Intel (who would be more than happy to not have to worry about the patents falling into the hands of Qualcomm/Apple/etc)
- Take the cash, immediately pay off its $2B in debt (really, it's not that much)
- Continue on as a leaner, NVIDIA-style company that builds ARM-based SoCs and pushes graphics more heavily.

AMD is simply spread too thin. That being said, I see no reason for them to actually "die". They'll find a way out of this mess by slimming down and focusing. I don't expect, however, to see them ever really "go up against Intel" in the way that people are hoping for. That doesn't mean that the company still can't be quite successful and profitable.

Radeons still rock, and I'm sure with more love and care, the FirePro and FireStream lineup could be a very nice, high margin, high barrier-to-entry thing. Game consoles, handheld gaming devices, and other things that really like high performance graphics could be a huge win.

AMD has a LOT of possibilities, but it needs to start deciding on what it wants to do NOW.

ATi is wortless. AMD is losing ground to nVidia with GCN:
Lost the notebook market (accelerate thx to Llano and Trinity), needs much lower prices for the desktop chips, no market share in the workstation and server.

I don't think anybody want to go against nVidia and their IP portfolio.

I don't think GCN (or any of the GPU silicon) is to blame for any ground given up to Nvidia. It seems like along the road, if there was a right path to take or a wrong path to take, regarding everything other than the GPU world (that is the CPU side and business decisions), AMD took the wrong direction. Selling their mobile division. Having a lesson on high IPC vs. going for high clock speed/low IPC right in front of their noses, even being on the winning side of things in the P4/A64 days, yet Bulldozer is what they launch. And of course the price they paid for ATI may ultimately be what hurts AMD more than anything.

Not surprised, like I posted last week, units are shrinking and with Intel going to a meet volume strategy, AMD's sales must be tanking big time.

I think if AMD changed their business model to be like NVIDIA (with the difference being NVDIA has ARM whereas AMD would have x86) and not Intel, they could survive and prosper.

Jettison the server business, BD, Trinity and anything to do with Global Foundries and focus on products made at TSMC, namely GPU and Low power x86 like the upcoming Jaguar, their cost structure would go way down and their prospects up. ATI prior to being acquired by AMD had $170MM quarterly overhead which included ADRENO and chipsets. So you'd think they could do that plus Jaguar stuff for - wag- under $300MM per quarter?

Moreover, presumably Jaguar can be modified to fit tablet, micro- server, higher end APU (ie replace piledriver In trinity with Jaguar) and even low end CPU (eg. a $25 x86 CPU with integrated FCH). Also, only fabbing @ TSMC only would allow them to jettison the packaging operations too (don't believe NVDIA has their own packaging operations either).

Let's assume they can get overhead down to $300MM per quarter. That would imply the need to make $20 per part (APU, GPU or CPU) on a volume of 15MM units per quarter. Seems doable.

Obviously they would need to negotiate a contractual exit with Global Foundries.

One mistake that becomes clear and somewhat limits their options now is the failure to pursue on Bobcat 2+ years ago. Had they done so, they'd probably be shipping in volume a 28nm GCN based replacement already.

They should be trying to do something with their patent portfolio, whatever CPU IP not related to x86 or derived from Intel IP, or their GPU IP.

Selling Imageon to Qualcomm at the time was a strategic decision only if you think that AMD could have changed directions at the time. Without selling Imageon but don't investing on it would mean that AMD would have an insignificant stake at the market.

Selling Seamicro today might be a good option. What's the point of keeping Seamicro inside the company if they don't have the necessary money to develop the new business?

Well if they hadn't blown billions trying to keep up with Intel in the high end they could have expanded upon their lower tier acquisitions. AMD's biggest problem has been trying to go toe to toe with Intel for too long. Should have leveraged the goodwill from the Athlon 64 and x2 era to carve out a low mid tier niche instead of trying to trade punches with a refocused Intel.

I still see no reason to sell my AMD stock. I've already taken a huge hit anyways.

Bankruptcy would have me scared, but realistically that's still a ways off, especially with AMD's constant cost cutting. If AMD does sell itself off in pieces and into oblivion, then there's gonna be more return for me as a share holder because AMD's book/IP value exceeds their current market valuation by a good bit.

I don't know. AMD needs R&D cash more anything else.

I hope you aren't seriously making financial decisions based on bad information. If you look at their financial numbers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AMD, they only have about $336 million of actual tangible assets, i.e. book value.

So even now, the stock is easily exceeding book value. And will stay that way until it hits something like $0.50. Of course by then they could have even less book value. Not unless they suddenly swing into profitability.

Are you kidding me? Management must be terrible. How did they not expect weak demand when their products are inferior but not 'cheaper' enough? Oftentimes I really wanted to buy AMD for a lower level rig, but it's just not that much cheaper to compensate for the noticeable performance loss.

- Sell its X86-64 patents to Intel (who would be more than happy to not have to worry about the patents falling into the hands of Qualcomm/Apple/etc)
- Take the cash, immediately pay off its $2B in debt (really, it's not that much)
- Continue on as a leaner, NVIDIA-style company that builds ARM-based SoCs and pushes graphics more heavily.

AMD is simply spread too thin.

A very interesting idea you proposed. However, if ARM-based servers are to take off, it probably won't be for a while. If AMD stops selling x86 CPUs now, they probably won't have any cash at all to pursue this strategy as their ARM-based servers won't even be ready until 2014. Also, it seems that strategy's key competitive advantage is the software that allows x86 Opteron CPUs to talk with ARM-based CPUs. If they sell the x86 license, this strategy is shot and they'll find themselves competing head-on against a pure ARM-based server play like Project Denver which will surely be more advanced than off-the-shelf licensed ARM CPUs.

Focusing on GPUs alone is also questionable, since it's not like NV makes bad products and frankly the discrete GPU market is shrinking outside of HPC business. This is not a surprise since the traditional PC market is shrinking and GPUs are being replaced by APUs.

If you look at NV's financials, the company would not be profitable without Tegra + Professional GPU divisions. Even if AMD somehow got 50% consumer GPU and 50% Professional GPU market share, it may still not be enough to keep the company afloat since NV's management is a lot more efficient/lean. It's doubtful AMD's management would be able to run the company as well as NV even if it focused more on graphics. After all, it's poor management that continued to undermine AMD year after year. Also, while NV couldn't launch GK100 out on time, for next generation they seem ready to go with GK110 and if anything AMD is poised to lose more market share in the GPU space, not gain it. It's hard to imagine how AMD can gain much GPU market share unless NV makes a mistake.

"Barclays Capital analyst Ben Reitzes ripped into the industry in a note Tuesday, saying he expects demand for PCs to drop by 50 million to 100 million by 2015 and sees no plan from PC companies to combat that. "The consumer market remains weak and the tablet and smartphone markets continue to cannibalize the PC market; the iPad Mini, new iPad and the iPhone 5 could continue to take wallet share," Reitzes wrote, later adding "After years of denial, most PC industry players still don't seem to realize what is happening — and don't have contingency plans."

So even now, the stock is easily exceeding book value. And will stay that way until it hits something like $0.50. Of course by then they could have even less book value. Not unless they suddenly swing into profitability.

I think what he meant to say is that the company is undervalued on an Adjusted Net Book value calculation (i.e., you adjust all the assets and liabilities to their respective market values). Also, the net tangible assets exclude any intangible assets such as goodwill, patents and trademarks. That's the point he is making that if you were to take the company and do an orderly liquidation, it is worth more than the $2 market value.

Also, the company was trading at $1.82 on November 21, 2008 and has rebounded to $7-9 range on many occasions. His point is it's not time to panic yet wrt to orderly liquidation/piece-by-piece sale of the firm. The stock's RSI has also fluctuated from 9-30 since June 2012, signalling significant downward selling pressure, which is evident by a very large short-interest on this stock. The $2 price is not necessarily reflective of a proper valuation of the firm. Right now the short-sellings have control, the market trends are negative for the PC market and the global economy is not doing well at all. It's understandable that companies in the tech industry with a poor balance sheet position and poor growth prospects would be especially vulnerable.

I hope you aren't seriously making financial decisions based on bad information. If you look at their financial numbers: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AMD, they only have about $336 million of actual tangible assets, i.e. book value.

So even now, the stock is easily exceeding book value. And will stay that way until it hits something like $0.50. Of course by then they could have even less book value. Not unless they suddenly swing into profitability.

Mate, AMD's current market valuation is $1.5bn - their cash reserve alone is equal to that, not to mention the value of their IP and other assets. What debt they do have is nearly all long-term, making it fairly inconsequential.

If you buy an AMD CPU, it's not a big deal if AMD ceases to exist or stops supporting the CPU, because the CPU doesn't rely on drivers to be "compatible" with future software.

It's different with GPUs, though. A new game comes out, and the GPU software drivers may need to be tweaked/optimized for that particular game. So I could foresee fewer people interested in buying a GPU from a company whose future is uncertain, or who may have trouble committing resources to further software driver development for the GPU.

But even with that limitation of GPUs, I'd still be willing to buy a GPU from AMD even if they were on really bad terms as far as software support. The reason is that even if future software is not supported (unlikely), the card and current drivers would still provide utility for current and past games where the software is optimized for those. Also, I think it's unlikely that AMD would stop support for GPU software, seeing how they really invested in boosting the current performance of GPUs with the latest software driver release for GPUs.

I'm just hoping that the general market will be spooked and avoid buying AMD cards, and then AMD would have to drop prices for black friday and I'll snag a great deal.

Personally I don't believe AMD can turn the ship quickly enough to survive, queue Titanic analogy, and they only just realized there is an iceberg ahead.

Any new direction will just take too long to accomplish. They will sink before it can pay off. It's too late for them to break into the Arm market and compete successfully, and they are nowhere close to competing in x86 tablet and ultrabook markets. They simply have nothing compelling to offer right now; 2014 is way too late.

No need to justify your poor stock pick. Gotta cut those losses, I'm still learning that one. They say ride your winners and cut your losses. Again, still learning that one. Bought Sony (SNE) the day Warner Brothers went Blu-ray exclusive and took a nice beating on that -- but luckily sold out after realizing online/digital would always weigh on any poss Bluray gains -- sold at $28.41...down to $10 now. Held Nintendo too long too -- sold in mid $20s as well and also now in the teens. Low can get lower. MUCH lower.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Centauri

Mate, AMD's current market valuation is $1.5bn - their cash reserve alone is equal to that, not to mention the value of their IP and other assets. What debt they do have is nearly all long-term, making it fairly inconsequential.

There is (as of now) no second coming of intel. Despite this AMD news intel hit a new 52-week low on the market TODAY. We live in what is starting to be (and quickly accelerating) a post pc world. How many intel insides do you see on those smartphones? tablets? Intel is still having lots of trouble penetrating those areas and is stumbling. Will it succeed? I dunno, depends how determined intel is and how profitable/important a market they deem it. Tho I doubt intel will be content in a desktop only world even if they were the only player in town...which is pretty much how it's been anyways the past 3+ years...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TerryMathews

I for one, do not look forward to a second coming of an Intel with no effective competition.

The PPro/P2/early P3 days were terrible. Rather than innovate, Intel just kept releasing the same-ish core at near the same price.